2003 (7) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Release of jewellery lying with the authorities of the Income-tax Department which was seized - the opinion formed by respondent No. 2 qua the correctness of entries is based on misreading of the relevant page of the stock register. If the officer had bothered to undertake a comprehensive study of various entries he would have surely realized that the so called overwritings are irrelevant and insignificant and the figures recorded therein tally with other entries - In our opinion the impugned order is liable to be quashed because while deciding the question relating to release of the jewellery respondent No. 2 failed to consider the material produced by the petitioner and gravely erred in appreciating the entries recorded in the stock register.

Summary

Issues involved:
Release of seized jewellery by Income-tax Department, validity of order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, consideration of evidence by respondent No. 2, compliance with High Court directions.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought release of jewellery seized by the Income-tax Department in Bhopal in June 2002. The jewellery belonged to M/s. J. L. Kapoor and Sons, Amritsar, as per the income-tax authorities. The petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated against M/s. J. L. Kapoor and Sons, leading to a Division Bench directing the assessing authority to examine the books of account to determine if the seized jewellery was accounted for. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar, declared the stock register entries as not authentic, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for release of the jewellery, which was dismissed with liberty to seek legal remedy. The High Court found that respondent No. 2 erred in not considering the material produced by the petitioner, including various documents. The Court held that the conclusion on the stock register entries was erroneous and vitiated the order. Additionally, the failure to consider the documents resulted in a grave failure of justice and non-compliance with the High Court's directions. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the case to respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order in line with the High Court's directions.

The High Court observed that respondent No. 2 failed to properly assess the evidence presented by the petitioner, leading to a flawed conclusion regarding the authenticity of stock register entries. The Court highlighted that a comprehensive review of the entries would have shown their accuracy and relevance, thereby deeming respondent No. 2's conclusion as erroneous. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the failure to consider the petitioner's documents resulted in a significant miscarriage of justice and a violation of the High Court's directives. As a remedy, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the original order, and instructed respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order within one month, requiring the petitioner's appearance with a copy of the Court's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment centered on the release of seized jewellery by the Income-tax Department, focusing on the validity of the Assistant Commissioner's order and the consideration of evidence. The Court found shortcomings in respondent No. 2's assessment of the petitioner's documents, leading to an erroneous conclusion and a failure to comply with the High Court's directions. As a result, the Court quashed the original order and remanded the case for a fresh decision in line with the Court's directives, emphasizing the importance of a thorough review of evidence in legal proceedings.